The Arabs’ Real Revolution
Hat tip to realclearpolitics.com. Here are links to Mark Steyn’s and Christopher Hitchens’ takes on the Arab revolution. The subject deserves a media blitz– it’s huge.
Here’s a link to my Arab revolution column (last December) — it’s a heads-up on where the Arab street was heading. Actually, this column from November 2001 has the broader context.
What boggles my mind is how the Bush Admininstration maneuvered the US into a position where we can claim to be on the side of “The Arab Street.” After 911, I couldn’t figure out how we were going to fight the whole damn Arab world’s hatred. Now Bush and Condi are backing up “the street” against their rulers. This is either some kind of astonishing diplomatic jujitsu or amazing luck. Maybe a combination of both.
Comment by Salt Lick — 3/1/2005 @ 10:12 am
Question: All discussions of Middle Eastern politics have to be conducted against the backdrop of cash flows. Following his expulsion from Kuwait, Saddam cut deals for the development of his three principal petroleum producing fields with China, France, and Russia, thereby buying outright three UN Security Council votes. In the case of Iran, I haven’t seen a good analysis of who has been bought, aside from Russia, in order to provide the mullahs sufficient time and technical support to develop nuclear weapons. Who is following the money which is always the starting point for any political discussion?
Comment by kevin mccullough — 3/1/2005 @ 10:40 am
Salt Lick, Could it be we were wrong about the Arab Street?
Comment by Alan Kellogg — 3/1/2005 @ 3:43 pm
Given that much of the “Arab Street” is still unpaved, it makes it a whole lot easier to re-route it.
Comment by Neo — 3/1/2005 @ 9:29 pm
“Could it be we were wrong about the Arab Street?” Maybe so, Alan. Maybe the MSM painted the wrong picture, or we didn’t recognize the complexity of Arab attitudes. I’ve had Arab friends and, like the friendship mentioned in Austin’s piece at today’s RealClear Politics, my relationship with them operated at different levels. I’ve always thought Arabs are a lot like my fellow Southerners — honestly, can’t you just see Arab characters replacing Southerners in some of Flannery O’Connor’s stories? Very hospitable, bound by honor, but with a personality produced by burning religiosity and shame at inheriting a fallen civilization. Whoooo, it can make volatile mixture. There will still be lots of bumps down the road in the Middle East, but Arabs will make good friends if we really win them over.
Comment by Salt Lick — 3/2/2005 @ 8:56 am
Salt Lick, The Arab Street heretofore has been speaking on behalf of entrenched tribal interests. Tribes hate and crush individualism. That is why the Arab Street has been so hostile to the US, and to all democratic, individualist players. Now that democratic, individualist politics has become a fact in Iraq and Afghanistan the individuals who make up the Arab Street are starting to speak for themselves, not for their tribal positions. Not only that, but the tribal elite now understand that they can be made irrelevant in a single election, so they have to back off from their hardline positions and allow for some degree of individual freedom. All IMHO. Cheers, Lorenzo
Comment by Lorenzo — 3/2/2005 @ 10:47 am
Salt_lick: This game is only begun and the ramifications are still unknown, but it seems there really are developments which can shift things. As for aligning with the “street,” I would put the primary reason down to the complexities of US power. Originally after the invasion of Iraq there was a sense among the administration that the ideal government could be defined, that our values were their values. General Garner was fired for among other things proposing rapid elections. The reasons given for refusing this have now been refuted, ration cards worked as ID and certainly the security situtation was better in the summer/fall of 2003 than recently. But instead we thought we could get a bunch of twenty somethings to define the country: flat tax, buy concrete from Turkey because the Iraqi plants are still government owned which was politicaly incorrect etc. However the system had the flexibility to shift. Sistani and the UN forced elections, it was realized that driving an ice cream truck or trying to start a cooking school was not good qualification for running a country even if you were young and bright and had sent your resume to the Heritage Foundation. It would be completely wrong to think that the people elected were what we *wanted* but the system has the capacity to adjust, to compromise, to reform, when faced with clear cut choices our traditions of laws over leaders means that there is significant power for doing the “right” thing even if it contradicts percieved advantage. Neither the left nor the right undertand this. The right historicaly defends al we do, denies or rationalizes actions. The left sees flaws, often serious and decides these are. The thing is that we are a system that exposes itself and struggles to balance interests. In the long term one of the best fears of propaganda was the revelations of prison abuse and the (even partial) attempts at cleansing. Why? Because in the nations we challenge these actions are always denied, never admitted, never addressed. Of course they are known sooner or latter. The right thinks like the dictaters, they think if you pretend you control reality. The left sees only the flaws. But historically our system has made all kinds of questionable and even immoral choices. They’ve done deals with dictaters, but even then (and even under conservatives like Reagon) there have been pressures. It took 30 years for s Korea to become a democracy, but contrast the final state with N Korea. Or the freedom of Taiwan (a police state which had murdered one percent of the population of the island when the KMT fled the mainland) with China. Note even as we applaid the new government the State Department reports on police abuses. The thing is that our mperfect system does evolve and respond. Bush has now positioned himself as the first president since Jimmy Carter to make human rights central. Will his actions be imperfect and at times hypocritical? Of course. But the thing is that we can balance out to being more truly benovelant than other historical powers. While this does not guarantee success, it has covered for a lot of blundering, it has led to long term victory despite the consistence harping of tehe right that we are weak, that we don’t share the values of our enemies, that we muddle about in liberal wishy washism. But strangely it often works some how. The middle east is a mess, this particular set of events may lead to a greater mess, the victory cries of the right are as premature as they were 2 years ago. They leave in an imaginery reality, and think every hopeful sign is a final victory, the main purpose of which is to mock the doubters. But they are correct that there is possibility and we have the potential or the situation has the potential to start a liberating process. They are incorrect in that they want to muzzle every warning and every concern. However one can hope that the administration has learned a lot since it ignored the advice of the army war college and so many others a few years ago. It will take reports of problems and potential problems not as something to be ignored, but as things to prepare for. It may also understand that if freedom and justice begin to evolve in this region it will not be as we define it, these people will have different values and interests, they will be more *fundamentally* at odds with us than France is. But within that framework a truly better society and government can emerge along with a more healthy way of cooperation.
Comment by H Lee — 3/2/2005 @ 1:24 pm